Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Some descriptive words come to mind to describe Sydney Anglican, David Ould..but humble certainly is not one of them!

                                                                                          



Well I hope you're not thinking SHOW PONY...I 'm not into self promotion by using God's name...What did George Eliot say... Given, a man with moderate intellect, a moral standard not higher than the average, some rhetorical affluence and great glibness of speech, what is the career in which, without the aid of birth or money, he may most easily attain power and reputation in English society? Where is that Goshen of mediocrity in which a smattering of science and learning will pass for profound instruction, where platitudes will be accepted as wisdom, bigoted narrowness as holy zeal, unctuous egoism as God-given piety? Let such a man become an evangelical preacher; he will then find it possible to reconcile small ability with great ambition, superficial knowledge with the prestige of erudition, a middling morale with a high reputation for sanctity. Let him shun practical extremes and be ultra only in what is purely theoretic; let him be stringent on predestination, but latitudinarian on fasting; unflinching in insisting on the Eternity of punishment, but diffident of curtailing the substantial comforts of Time; ardent and imaginative on the promillennial advent of Christ, but cold and cautious toward every other infringement of the status quo. Let him fish for souls not with the bait of inconvenient singularity, but with the drag-net of comfortable conformity. Let him be hard and literal in his interpretation only when he wants to hurl texts at the heads of unbelievers and adversaries, but when the letter of the Scriptures presses too closely on the genteel Christianity of the nineteenth century, let him use his spiritualizing alembic and disperse it into impalpable ether. Let him preach less of Christ than of Antichrist; let him be less definite in showing what sin is than in showing who is the Man of Sin, less expansive on the blessedness of faith than on the accursedness of infidelity.

Hi Jesus...Welcome to the Glenquarry parish. We're not all as affluent as some in the parish... but we do know  about the political big ticket items that you wrote about in the bible...you know...abortion and euthanasia...oh and let's not forget sexism and homophobia! Personally...I think poverty, domestic violence and violence in general, unemployment, lack of social equity and opportunity, deserted mothers and wives, illicit drug and alcohol abuse, crime, teenage pregnancy and disadvantage are the big ticket items around here. Can't you get Mr Ould to trawl through bible verses to help us have the same opportunities as his Neutral Bay parish or at least enable our children to attend Kings School?
 


3 comments:

  1. I sympathise with the poor folks of Glenquarie in having to tolerate this self-promoting prick spouting his religious extremism and biblical garbage. It's time Dobby was given a one-way ticket to the dole queue. Seeing him try to sing on You Tube is vomit-inducing.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anti-materialistMay 16, 2014 at 5:13 AM

    Scott Stephens recent article on the ABC Religion & Ethics page regarding Andrew Bolt seems sadly to have a much broader application. It begins as follows:

    "The madman is not the man who has lost his reason," Chesterton insisted. "The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason." It is this heedless, unmoored quality that makes the materialist view of the world at once grim and seductive, just to the extent that it flattens out complexity and renders all reality bare before reason's austere gaze. Everything is thus explicable within what Chesterton calls the insane simplicity of materialism's "clean and well-lit prison of one idea" - but its explanatory power comes at the expense of the transcendent Good, the sublime in and of nature, the irreducible depth of human experience. This is why, Chesterton concludes, "The lunatic's theory explains a large number of things, but it does not explain them in a large way."

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree that "lunatic" Ould has a lot of things to explain, but sadly doesn't understand any of them.

    ReplyDelete